In-Depth Analysis: Revisiting Several Common Misconceptions About Logistics Standardization

Information units, measurement units, ordering units, circulation units, data units, and tracking units are all built upon the cargo unit as their foundation.

In the field of logistics standardization, many people still hold numerous misconceptions and make a variety of erroneous statements. For example: 1. China’s standardization reform should move toward market‑driven approaches. Why not allow different pallet size and specification standards to coexist, thereby fostering market‑based competition in pallet standardization? 2. Any standard that enhances efficiency aligns with the principles of market competition and can be resolved through competitive market mechanisms. Since pallet standardization can significantly improve logistics efficiency, it should entirely be addressed via market forces. 3. In the context of economic globalization, we ought to align with international norms rather than emphasizing U.S., European, Japanese, or Chinese standards. China should adopt ISO international standards. 4. Both European and Japanese pallet standards have incorporated the pallet specifications championed by China—so why can’t China integrate European‑standard pallets into its own national pallet‑standardization framework? 5. Is it necessary for a small item like a pallet to mobilize national resources and funding for standardization? Isn’t this government intervention in the market? 6. If only one pallet size and specification standard is to be promoted, why not elevate it from a recommended standard to a mandatory one? Wouldn’t that resolve all issues without requiring the government to expend effort or funds on promotion? And so on.

Today, we will primarily engage in a critical analysis of these newly raised issues. The views expressed are my personal ones; constructive criticism and discussion are welcome!  

01 On the Marketization of Logistics Standards

In 2015, the State Council issued the “Plan for Deepening Reform of Standardization Work,” which explicitly called for the establishment of a coordinated development model in which government‑led standards and market‑driven standards advance in tandem. Through this reform, the existing standardization system—previously characterized by a single, government‑centric supply—is to be transformed into a new type of standardization framework composed of both government‑led standards and market‑driven standards. Based on this, many experts have concluded that: Pallet size standards should not be mandated nationwide; rather, multiple standards should coexist, allowing for market competition.   There are quite a few logistics standardization experts who hold this mistaken view, some of whom are highly renowned. Such perspectives enjoy considerable traction within the logistics community, necessitating a thorough, well‑reasoned analysis.   1. The State’s “Plan for Deepening Reform of Standardization Work” must not be misinterpreted or viewed in a one-sided manner. National documents explicitly stipulate that the four categories of standards—mandatory national standards, recommended national standards, recommended industry standards, and recommended local standards—must be developed under government leadership, while standards formulated independently by the market are primarily group standards and enterprise standards. The national standard for pallets is a recommended national standard and does not fall within the category of standards independently formulated by the market. Furthermore, the state’s reform to promote the market‑oriented development of standardization is guided by the principle that standards should be derived from market needs, rather than being formulated behind closed doors by experts or arbitrarily set without due consideration of actual market demands. It by no means encourages disregarding established standards during the standardization process or undermining market competition. 2. By invoking reforms aimed at market‑based standardization, some experts who call for market‑driven competition in pallet‑size standards actually do not understand what a standard is: Chinese thinking is characterized by vagueness and does not place much emphasis on precise conceptual definitions. Many standards experts spend their days discussing and drafting standards, yet if you were to ask them, “What is a standard?” they might offer a rather ambiguous description—more often than not, they would fail to provide a clear, definitive answer. The precise definition of “standard”—in other words, he may not even know what a standard truly is. According to the national standard GB/T 3935.1–83: “A standard is a unified specification established for repetitive objects and concepts, based on a synthesis of science, technology, and practical experience, agreed upon through consultation among relevant parties, approved by the competent authority, and promulgated in a prescribed form as a guideline and basis for common compliance.” If a standard has already been formulated through consensus, why is there still competition? According to the standard’s definition, within its scope of application, it does not itself possess the elements of market competition; rather, it serves as a set of shared guidelines and a basis for compliance. Remember: Competition among standards occurs outside their respective scopes of application, pitting them against other comparable standards, not within those scopes. Engaging in competitive standardization within a given scope of application amounts to creating a hodgepodge of standards—effectively rendering the system without standards at all. Standards are guidelines and bases that are jointly observed—so why would there be competition? Pallet standards are national recommended standards: they are formulated through nationwide consensus, officially promulgated by the state, and intended to serve as guidelines and bases for relevant enterprises and departments across the country to follow. How could there possibly be competition among multiple standards? Of course, what Mr. Wang is saying does not preclude competition among certain group standards and enterprise standards. After all, group standards are agreed upon only within a specific group, and different groups can still compete with one another on similar standards. Even national standards may face competition between different countries. 3. Standards are the outcome of market competition, not its process. Before a standard is established, consultation and discussion are required, and the outcomes of market competition must be respected. Once a standard is in place, it signifies that market competition has concluded and its results have been firmly established, with all parties having reached consensus on a set of rules to which they will collectively adhere. China’s pallet size standard of 1200 mm × 1000 mm was established through market competition and is itself a product of that competitive process, rather than an artificial imposition. It aligns with the direction of market‑oriented reform. The state has prioritized the 1200 mm × 1000 mm specification (hereinafter referred to as “1210”) because, based on existing market stock, it has become the dominant standard; from the perspective of market operations, it both accommodates mainstream product dimensions and fits internationally standardized maritime shipping containers. Having already prevailed in market competition, it represents the outcome of a truly market‑driven process.

02 Issues in the Standard System for Pallet Dimensions and Specifications Between China and Foreign Countries

Questions such as why, given that both European and Japanese pallet standards have incorporated the pallet specifications championed by China, China has not yet integrated the mainstream European pallet dimensions into its own national pallet standard series, pertain to the issue of pallet standardization between China and other countries. In other words: how should we view the international… ISO pallet standards come in a variety of specifications; how should we view the issue of Europe and Japan adopting the 1210 standard? International ISO has multiple specifications for pallet dimensions, which is a source of frustration in standardization and an unavoidable compromise. Because pallet standards are foundational, countries worldwide have developed multiple mainstream pallet‑size specifications. Each of these standards is closely linked to a suite of related norms—covering product packaging dimensions, logistics containers, shipping units, vehicles, and warehousing—creating a web of interdependent requirements. A change in any one country’s dominant pallet size would trigger far‑reaching adjustments, making it difficult for nations to reach full consensus. As a result, international pallet standards remain fragmented, posing a major bottleneck in global logistics standardization. It’s akin to the situation with railway gauges: when Chinese trains traveling along the Belt and Road enter Russia, they must switch tracks. Everyone recognizes that adopting a common gauge—eliminating the need for track changes—would significantly boost efficiency. But could we dismantle all of Russia’s existing tracks and replace them with Chinese‑standard rails? Or reverse the process, removing China’s rails and installing Russian ones? Neither option is feasible. Consequently, we are left to endure the inefficiencies inherent in frequent track switching.   International The coexistence of multiple standards within the ISO pallet standard is a lesson learned from history, a persistent challenge in global standardization, and a major bottleneck hindering improvements in worldwide logistics efficiency. If that’s the case, is China really going to continue clinging to backwardness at home, deliberately creating bottlenecks in logistics‑system integration and undermining logistical efficiency, while fully aligning itself…? ISO standards—why maintain a coexistence of multiple pallet specifications? Why must we perpetually endure the inefficiency of having to reverse‑pallet goods at every handoff in the logistics system? When we could standardize on a single pallet size, yet deliberately choose not to, instead opening the door to competing multi‑specification standards—isn’t that sheer folly? Of course, China’s promotion of the 1210 pallet standard reflects a deliberate choice: it aligns with the most widely adopted ISO pallet dimension and complies with ISO rules, posing no contradiction to international ISO standards. As for Europe’s adoption of China’s favored 1210 standard along the Belt and Road, why should China refuse to accept the 1280 standard (referring to 1200×800 mm)? Experts raising such questions clearly misunderstand the situation: it is not that Europe has embraced China’s pallet dimensions; rather, the European 1280 standard suffers from inherent shortcomings. Although it conforms to product‑packaging module dimensions, it fails to match maritime shipping containers. Historically, European exports have relied on the 1210 standard, so adopting 1210 for Belt and Road shipments is entirely natural—driven by the unavoidable limitations of the 1280 standard. Moreover, the 1210 standard is by no means uniquely Chinese; China’s pallet dimensions were themselves based on internationally mainstream specifications. Similarly, Europe once had numerous competing standards, but it steadily streamlined them rather than embracing multiplicity. It took more than nine years of concerted effort to consolidate Europe’s diverse pallet sizes into the 1280 standard. As for Japan’s decision to adopt the 1210 standard, it stems from the fatal flaw of its own 1111 standard (1100×1100 mm). While ideally suited to international shipping‑container norms, this standard is incompatible with the globally dominant product‑packaging module of 600×400 mm. Only the 1210 standard strikes the rare balance of being compatible with both mainstream packaging modules and maritime container dimensions, making it the world’s most widely used pallet size. Our promoted standard boasts these advantages, serves as the market‑leading dimension, and holds the potential to gradually harmonize domestic sizing, thereby boosting the domestic economic circulation. Furthermore, it is the predominant pallet specification for global exports. At a time when countries worldwide are embracing this standard to advance their dual‑circulation strategies, why would we instead introduce other pallet standards riddled with critical flaws, inviting competitive fragmentation? Are these experts also suffering from a lack of sound judgment?

03 Issues Regarding the National Pilot and Demonstration Program for Pallet Standardization

When efforts to standardize pallets were first launched, some senior leaders voiced opposition, directly asking: “If unifying pallet standards and enabling pallet‑based cargo handling without breaking the pallet can boost logistics efficiency, why aren’t businesses already aware of this? If they know it’s beneficial, why wouldn’t they take the initiative themselves? And if they are willing to act, what need is there for government intervention?” It should be borne in mind that the state has already affirmed that the market must play a decisive role in resource allocation.   Even a senior expert in logistics standardization has stated that any standard that enhances efficiency aligns with the principles of market competition and can be addressed through competitive market forces, since every enterprise seeks to improve efficiency and gain a competitive edge. Since pallet standardization can significantly enhance logistics efficiency, the issue of promoting standardization should be left entirely to market competition. Therefore, we firmly oppose the government’s introduction of pilot and demonstration programs that use public funds to advance standardization. And so on. The issues involving senior leaders and top experts mentioned above have posed significant obstacles to China’s efforts to standardize pallets, a matter that warrants thorough analysis. Old Wang’s most straightforward response is this: of course, companies are well aware that adopting a unified pallet standard and implementing palletized transport can greatly enhance logistics efficiency—after all, they’re not fools. Yet despite this awareness and desire, they simply cannot put it into practice. It’s like asking: could we really be unaware that when the Belt and Road freight trains reach Russia, they must switch gauges, which would drastically reduce efficiency? We all know this—but does that mean we don’t want to adopt a uniform standard to avoid such gauge changes? Of course we do. But does mere desire translate into actual implementation? Pallet standards involve a wide range of upstream and downstream enterprises and require the coordinated implementation of related standards for freight cars, racking systems, containers, logistics bins, product modules, and more. Even if a company recognizes that adopting a unified pallet standard could significantly enhance efficiency, as a market‑driven entity it lacks the authority to compel other firms to adopt its own standards. Nor can it rely on market competition alone to achieve uniformity in pallet standards. The market has failed here! Because every market participant seeks to impose its own standards on others, rather than adopting those of others. To achieve unified basic standards, the state must step in, mobilize governmental resources, act proactively, and steadily advance the standardization of pallets. This is a systemic undertaking that requires a step-by-step approach; more importantly, it calls for pilot projects and demonstration initiatives to encourage leading enterprises in the supply chain to take the lead in adopting nationally unified standards. It also necessitates revising other product standards related to pallets so that they align with the pallet standard, and ensuring that national standards become the dominant benchmarks in the market. Only then can market mechanisms be effectively activated. It becomes clear that if we do not adopt national standards, logistics efficiency will decline, logistics costs will rise, and the handover of goods will be deprioritized, thereby hindering timely delivery. Only when market mechanisms are fully activated can the market play its role in further advancing pallet standardization. It is not only China; advanced market economies around the world have all relied on state leadership to advance pallet standardization. European governments have, over more than nine years, promoted the European region. With the standardization of the 1280 pallet, countries such as Japan and South Korea have not only had their governments take the lead in promoting pallet standardization but have also allocated substantial public funds to advance this effort overseas, actively advocating for their national pallet standards in other nations. For instance, over the past decade and more, Japan has used government funding to sponsor Chinese pallet experts to study in Japan, hoping that by learning about and gaining a deeper understanding of Japanese pallet standards, China will adopt them as well. Japanese pallet‑related associations and institutions—such as the Japan Distribution Research Institute—regularly organize delegations to China to promote Japanese pallet standards and lobby for their adoption. The notion that governments should not spearhead pallet standardization and that market forces alone should drive it is profoundly mistaken and highly detrimental.

04 Why can’t pallet standards be designated as mandatory standards?

Some senior leaders have also asked: Since pallet standardization is so important, why not make pallet‑size standards mandatory? If they were made compulsory and rigorously enforced, wouldn’t that solve the problem once and for all, sparing the government from having to expend considerable effort and resources to drive adoption? Moreover, a leading national standards expert has pointed out that in the past, elevator dimensions in Chinese buildings were also inconsistent; after being codified as mandatory standards, uniformity was achieved. This is also a very confusing issue. Of course, if pallet dimensions are made a mandatory standard—so that using non‑standard pallets is illegal—then neither the production nor the use of such pallets would be permitted, and anyone who does either could be subject to enforcement and penalties. Promoting pallet standardization in this way sounds ideal. But while it may seem appealing on paper, the reality is far less rosy. Unlike elevator dimension standards, an elevator is just a single product, making it relatively easy to impose a uniform, mandatory standard. Similarly, if the goods placed on pallets were all of a single type, enforcing a standardized pallet size would also be straightforward. However, The objects of logistics operations are highly diverse; they cannot be limited to a single type of cargo, nor to a finite set of categories. In practice, we never know what kinds of goods we will encounter. Pallets serve as carriers for these goods, yet no single, standardized pallet size can accommodate the vast majority of product dimensions. Consequently, a uniform pallet standard cannot possibly suit all types of cargo—there will always be exceptions. This reality means that pallet standards can never be universally harmonized to meet the needs of every kind of shipment. When faced with such exceptions, we must refrain from treating pallets as mandatory specifications.   However, if China’s majority of pallet standards were unified as a national voluntary standard, it would significantly enhance logistics efficiency and yield lasting benefits for generations to come.  

05 What are the common misconceptions in advancing logistics standardization?

First, there is the view that logistics standardization simply means establishing logistics standards: Standardization is not about setting standards; the focus of standardization lies in… The character “hua” (化) is a play on words: it consists of the radical for “person” with a dagger beside it, symbolizing a normative, coercive action. In China, logistics standardization hinges on the practical application of standards—not on simply drafting numerous logistics standards. Second, there is a misconception that any standard issued by a group organization is automatically a group standard. It’s important to recognize that a group standard isn’t sufficient merely because it has been issued by a group; it must also be adopted and applied by the group. We observe that many associations and organizations are continually publishing standards, yet they often fail to specify which companies have committed to implementing them. This is a classic case of a “group standard” that lacks a true group. A group standard should explicitly disclose all enterprises that have adopted it—meaning: when you publish a group standard, please also list the member organizations that will implement it. Third, there is a perception that standardization efforts are solely about promoting the application of national standards: In fact, the focus of standardization lies with enterprises; they are at the heart of logistics standardization and serve as the driving force behind its advancement. In the course of standardization efforts, it is essential to promote the harmonization and uniformity of national logistics standards, thereby encouraging the gradual refinement of internal enterprise standard systems—particularly in areas such as service standards, operational process standards, and management standards. Enterprise standards constitute the core and typically account for at least a significant portion of the standards implemented within an organization. More than 70%—to facilitate the implementation of corporate standards, companies should not merely draft and file their standards and internal regulations for record‑keeping; instead, they should promote the comprehensive application of these standards and vigorously advance standard visualization, making corporate standards tangible and easily enforceable. Fourth, there is a perception that corporate standards are inadequate, leading to an overreliance on logistics standardization as a means of elevating these corporate standards to the national level. In fact, with respect to safety standards, service‑oriented standards, and operational standards, corporate standards should set the highest requirements, followed by industry standards, then national standards, and finally international standards. National and international standards are, by their very nature, benchmarks that all enterprises across a broader scope are expected to meet—outcomes shaped through negotiation and compromise among a wider range of stakeholders. Enterprises are inherently required to comply with national standards, while their own internal standards should exceed those national requirements; moreover, the state actively encourages companies to establish standards that go beyond the baseline set by national regulations.   Fifth, it is believed that standardizing commercial and logistics operations amounts to encouraging pallet leasing. In advancing the standardization of commercial and logistics operations, pallets—being the most commonly used unit of cargo in inter‑system handoffs—play a pivotal role. By promoting pallet‑based transportation through pallet leasing, we can achieve seamless connectivity across supply‑chain logistics systems: incoming goods can be directly loaded and unloaded with forklifts and routed straight into the company’s own storage system, eliminating the need to transfer items from the supplier’s pallets to the company’s own. This, in turn, necessitates that logistics equipment standards—including pallets, forklifts, material‑handling devices, racking and storage locations, and freight vehicles—be aligned with pallet dimensions, thereby driving broader logistics standardization. The national objective is not merely to encourage enterprises to adopt pallet leasing; rather, it is to leverage pallet leasing and palletized transport as levers for harmonizing pallet‑related standards throughout the upstream and downstream supply chain. Sixth, there is a perception that the standardization of commercial and logistics operations is confined solely to pallets and unitized logistics. Actually, it’s been confirmed. Following the establishment of unit‑level standards for “things,” we should comprehensively advance standards for “flows,” encompassing process standards for logistics operations, cargo handover, and logistics services. Building on these “things” and “flows” standards, we can then move forward with “chain”‑level standards, ensuring that logistics standards are rolled out in a tiered manner to foster smart logistics and intelligent supply chains. To promote “supply chain” standards, it is essential to integrate the four major flows—logistics, information, capital, and commerce—into a unified system. This requires assigning unique identifiers to individual units of goods, effectively giving each unit a digital identity, and leveraging this unit‑based approach to achieve end‑to‑end logistics informatization. Furthermore, we should standardize electronic waybills, treating them as digital credentials for logistics units, interconnecting IoT‑enabled systems, and realizing the seamless integration of all four flows. Information units, measurement units, ordering units, circulation units, data units, and tracking units are all anchored in the foundational unit of the goods themselves.